(QUOTE) You really have no clue what amazing things gm is accomplishing with the pushrod v8 do you? (A) Yes I do, I was born in 1961, I think I came before the V8.

(QUOTE) With overhead cam engine you have to rev them out to get any performance at all. (A)This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, it's the same thing as a cam in block. The cam HAS to turn in conjunction with the crankshaft. The placement and the amount of cams is different, the drive is the same. Just a bit more expensive.

(Quote)Go buy a BMW or get educated... (A) Not only foreign cars have OHC I'm, sure there are a few floating around GM, FORD, DODGE already. I need to get educated???? 1 of you is 24 and the other is 26, I was taking apart gas and diesel engines when you were still a lump in your dad's pants.

Ok maybe not a dinosaur, I was born before the V8 so I may be considered a dinosaur LOL.

The pushrod is a weak link, the lifters are a weak link and the valve train instability probably cause more total engine failures than probably any other failure. The OHC engine lends itself to better valve train stability and higher performance, higher revving engines. OHC design is a bit more expensive. But you spend money anyway to make your engines more powerful.

What about the possibility of doing away with spark plugs. Nothing at all was commented on that.

People feel the same about carburetors and fuel injection. Some embrace different technology some don't.

Cool story bro, but Cadillac had a production V8 in 1914. They weren't even the first. Rolls Royce and Renault did it before in small quantities. You are not older than the V8 engine.

I would not be happy with that, because the Ford Coyote pumps out 420hp with 5.0liter...

Yes but that's the only v8 they offer as where this would be the base v8 option sorta like the 305 of the 3rd gens and the 6.2 would be the 350 and make a lot more power then the 5.0.(atleast for now) I think a 1ss with a 5.3 and more mpg friendly gears at a lower cost would help sales and then allow the 2ss to be offered with the big boy 6.2 at a higher cost and better gearing.

__________________

He is like the jedi night of gayness. If hitler and henry ford had a special needs child together it would probably be the pill.

Something to keep in mind when comparing Coyotes to other critters is the physical size of Ford's OHC V8s...much larger in width and height than the SBC. Weighs more, too.

So now you run into packaging issues. More boiler room required. Cowl height and frontal area issues. And don't forget a Lincoln 4-dr is supposed to share the next-Gen Stang chassis, too. If so, Lincoln will have input as to body-chassis structure and specs, just as Cadillac has with the Alpha derivatives.

There's an opportunity for GM to create a Gen-6 Camaro that, for once in a long-long time, is the same size or even smaller/lighter than the next-Gen Stang...and the physical size of the SBC plays a part in that overall physicality.

I think a 1ss with a 5.3 and more mpg friendly gears at a lower cost would help sales and then allow the 2ss to be offered with the big boy 6.2 at a higher cost and better gearing.[/QUOTE]

yep, this has been part of my point..if they can get those HP ratings out of a smaller displaced engine, they can get better MPG's with it and in turn, keep the super high, even supercharged beasts in the line-up. But Honestly with less rotating mass, the 5.3L will rev quicker, will have comparable power and the 6th gen will weigh less thus making an awesome track car..with good MPG's LOL

Yes but that's the only v8 they offer as where this would be the base v8 option sorta like the 305 of the 3rd gens and the 6.2 would be the 350 and make a lot more power then the 5.0.(atleast for now) I think a 1ss with a 5.3 and more mpg friendly gears at a lower cost would help sales and then allow the 2ss to be offered with the big boy 6.2 at a higher cost and better gearing.

We both know that's not the way it will go down. It's not like a 5.3L displacement engine will be cheaper to produce than the 6.2. If both are offered, a 5.3L V8 won't cost less than the current 1SS, it will be the same. You want a 6.2L, you'll have to pay thousands more in the first year of the 6th-gen than in the last year of the 5th gen if they go the 2 different displacements route.

__________________

"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.

The pushrod is a weak link, the lifters are a weak link and the valve train instability probably cause more total engine failures than probably any other failure. The OHC engine lends itself to better valve train stability and higher performance, higher revving engines.

How many RPMs does your Avatar guy's weekend pushrod car turn all afternoon long at wide open throttle?

How many RPMs does your Avatar guy's weekend pushrod car turn all afternoon long at wide open throttle?

....seriously, what are you saying? Look, take a stand, be factual, hold an opinion, but please stop seemingly taking the position of an antagonist with the overt intent to elicit controversial responses for ones own enjoyment. Sorry, ....

Something to keep in mind when comparing Coyotes to other critters is the physical size of Ford's OHC V8s...much larger in width and height than the SBC. Weighs more, too.

So now you run into packaging issues. More boiler room required. Cowl height and frontal area issues. And don't forget a Lincoln 4-dr is supposed to share the next-Gen Stang chassis, too. If so, Lincoln will have input as to body-chassis structure and specs, just as Cadillac has with the Alpha derivatives.

There's an opportunity for GM to create a Gen-6 Camaro that, for once in a long-long time, is the same size or even smaller/lighter than the next-Gen Stang...and the physical size of the SBC plays a part in that overall physicality.

The Coyote weights 430 and the LS3 418lbs. I'm wondering what is the weight of the LT1..

I know the LS3 is smaller in size, but Ford did pretty well because the 5.0 didnt gain any size over the 4.6, if I'm not mistaken. Maybe its even more compact than the 4.6l.

We both know that's not the way it will go down. It's not like a 5.3L displacement engine will be cheaper to produce than the 6.2. If both are offered, a 5.3L V8 won't cost less than the current 1SS, it will be the same. You want a 6.2L, you'll have to pay thousands more in the first year of the 6th-gen than in the last year of the 5th gen if they go the 2 different displacements route.

Never said the 5.3 would be cheaper to build. They could offer it at a lower power level day around 385hp since its going to be in a lighter chassis and then they could charge extra for the 6.2. It will probably never happen but it would be cool to have a budget v8 option.

__________________

He is like the jedi night of gayness. If hitler and henry ford had a special needs child together it would probably be the pill.

Never said the 5.3 would be cheaper to build. They could offer it at a lower power level day around 385hp since its going to be in a lighter chassis and then they could charge extra for the 6.2. It will probably never happen but it would be cool to have a budget v8 option.

Exactly.

__________________

"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.

After thinking about it I take back what I said about the 5.3 not being cheaper to produce. Since it's used more across the GM line up it should cost less overall for GM to build it compared to the 6.2 since its a "premium" engine and they make less of them. Yes I know a lot of the parts are the same but there enough parts that aren't that would allow for cheaper build cost based on the volume of each engine size. Once again I doubt it would happen but I would like to see two different v8 options simply because I think its cool and it allows each buyer to have a choice which is something we haven't had since 92.

__________________

He is like the jedi night of gayness. If hitler and henry ford had a special needs child together it would probably be the pill.

They are putting a 6.2 liter V8 in the New SS sedan, they put 6.2 liters in the Stingray, why would they put a smaller displacement engine in the best selling pony car in the land?

So the Camaro SS can get beat by the GT? Again? Put that DI 6.2 in that baby and there is your mpg savings AND your grunt. How do you even argue that the 5.3 liter is better than 6.2 if they are both DI with cylinder deactivation?

After thinking about it I take back what I said about the 5.3 not being cheaper to produce. Since it's used more across the GM line up it should cost less overall for GM to build it compared to the 6.2 since its a "premium" engine and they make less of them. Yes I know a lot of the parts are the same but there enough parts that aren't that would allow for cheaper build cost based on the volume of each engine size.

The logic could work both ways. Any savings based on the volume of the 5.3L displacement could be offset by differences between the truck engines and car engines. The 5.3L is the volume truck engine, but the volume advantage of the 5.3L displacement may be offset by the volume disadvantage of having a unique version of the 5.3L just for the Camaro. It depends on exactly what is interchangeable.

Ultimately, whatever cost differences there may be between the various displacements and applications of the small blocks is probably fairly small, certainly not anywhere near enough to affect price to the point that another trim can be separated out. So even if a 5.3L SS was offered (and it probably won't be), it will likely be priced where the current 1SS is, not below it. Sure, the 6.2L comes with a price premium in the trucks, but not because it costs GM that much more. It's mostly just marketing (attaching the larger engine to premium trims). The standard models pay for themselves and get people in the door, but the options are where the real money is made.

__________________

"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.

They are putting a 6.2 liter V8 in the New SS sedan, they put 6.2 liters in the Stingray, why would they put a smaller displacement engine in the best selling pony car in the land?

So the Camaro SS can get beat by the GT? Again? Put that DI 6.2 in that baby and there is your mpg savings AND your grunt. How do you even argue that the 5.3 liter is better than 6.2 if they are both DI with cylinder deactivation?

Never said a 5.3 is better then a 6.2 just liked the idea of multiple v8's. A 5.3 is a great engine and I'm sure it's going to be even better now with di so don't act like it can't be a strong setup when paired up with a lighter 6th gen camaro. A lot of people want a v8 but don't need or want the baddest setup which is why every v8 camaro sold isn't a zl1.

__________________

He is like the jedi night of gayness. If hitler and henry ford had a special needs child together it would probably be the pill.

The logic could work both ways. Any savings based on the volume of the 5.3L displacement could be offset by differences between the truck engines and car engines. The 5.3L is the volume truck engine, but the volume advantage of the 5.3L displacement may be offset by the volume disadvantage of having a unique version of the 5.3L just for the Camaro. It depends on exactly what is interchangeable.

Ultimately, whatever cost differences there may be between the various displacements and applications of the small blocks is probably fairly small, certainly not anywhere near enough to affect price to the point that another trim can be separated out. So even if a 5.3L SS was offered (and it probably won't be), it will likely be priced where the current 1SS is, not below it. Sure, the 6.2L comes with a price premium in the trucks, but not because it costs GM that much more. It's mostly just marketing (attaching the larger engine to premium trims). The standard models pay for themselves and get people in the door, but the options are where the real money is made.

Agreed but a man can still dream......

__________________

He is like the jedi night of gayness. If hitler and henry ford had a special needs child together it would probably be the pill.

Its also the point that that the 5.3L DI will get better gas milieage than the 6.2L...if we all want to keep our V8's in the future, I am all about having an option for a smaller standard V8 to help the company with CAFE ratings, and yes as we say we will pay to play, if you want the bigger engine you will pay for it.

Its also the point that that the 5.3L DI will get better gas milieage than the 6.2L...if we all want to keep our V8's in the future, I am all about having an option for a smaller standard V8 to help the company with CAFE ratings, and yes as we say we will pay to play, if you want the bigger engine you will pay for it.

Why are so many people here so accepting of the notion of something standard in the 5th gen model becoming a premium option that will cost considerably more in the 6th gen?

__________________

"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.

I'm really surprised at the news about a "base" Corvette... My understanding was that they were calling the C7 the Stingray because they wanted everyone to feel like they were getting that "upgraded" model. If they wanted a base then they should have had just a Corvette, and then the Corvette Stingray as an upgraded model. Doesn't make sense and contradicts what they were saying when the C7 was unveiled.

The way I understand it the 5.3 Vette is called the Corvette Coupe, not a Stingray. Different hood, front fenders, and a none removable top. GM is the one that said it was going to use the "truck 5.3". This is how the C5 ZO6 started out, as a less expensive Vette with the truck motor, but the last minute put the 345hp motor in it. Later they put 405hp in it and called the ZO6.

The way I understand it the 5.3 Vette is called the Corvette Coupe, not a Stingray. Different hood, front fenders, and a none removable top. GM is the one that said it was going to use the "truck 5.3". This is how the C5 ZO6 started out, as a less expensive Vette with the truck motor, but the last minute put the 345hp motor in it. Later they put 405hp in it and called the ZO6.

When did the C5 Z06 ever have an LS1? I recall it being launched with the LS6 right out of the box, 385hp the first year, and then 405hp after than.

__________________

"Proven V-8 power with better efficiency than a turbo V-6"

"The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive."eds.

The way I understand it the 5.3 Vette is called the Corvette Coupe, not a Stingray. Different hood, front fenders, and a none removable top. GM is the one that said it was going to use the "truck 5.3". This is how the C5 ZO6 started out, as a less expensive Vette with the truck motor, but the last minute put the 345hp motor in it. Later they put 405hp in it and called the ZO6.